New rules for export of scientific data proposed The Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration has proposed new regulations governing the export of scientific and technical data. According to ITA, the proposed rules seek to "preserve the free flow of ideas and people that is fundamental to effective research/ 7 At issue are what scientific communications and data are exportable under "General License GDTA: Technical Data Available to All Destinations. " The proposed rule covers such areas as publications, conferences, educational instructions, correspondence and informal scientific exchanges, federal contract controls, and commercial consulting. The proposed regulations would allow information arising during or resulting from fundamental research to be exported without restrictions to any destination. Fundamental research, in turn, is defined as basic and applied research in science and
engineering, the results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the scientific community. The proposed rules state that research conducted by scientists, engineers, or students at a university normally would be considered fundamental research. In contrast, research that is performed for a business entity would be considered proprietary under the proposed rules and therefore not eligible for a general export license, unless the information can be freely disclosed. Information subject to specific national security controls, such as grants or contracts that include requirements for prepublication review by the government, with right to withhold permission for publication, also would not be eligible for a general export license. The proposed regulations were published in the May 16 issue of the Federal Register. ITA will accept written comments until July 15. •
EPA's aerial scrutiny of Dow plant held legal In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency's aerial and photographic surveillance of Dow Chemical's Midland, Mich., manufacturing plant, conducted without a warrant, did not exceed the agency's investigative authority under the Clean Air Act and did not infringe on Dow's fourth-amendment rights against unreasonable searches. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Warren Burger noted that Dow took extreme precautions to ensure that its 2000-acre facility was not open to the public, and that EPA would have needed a warrant to enter the enclosed area at ground level. Nonetheless, he argued, the firm must expect only limited privacy for that area if it is not breached physically, as it was not in the photographic flyover. Intimate activities associated with family privacy in the home, which would require search warrants, "simply do not reach the outdoor areas or spaces between structures and buildings of a manufacturing plant," he wrote.
Burger also argued that the aerial surveillance was done with readily available, albeit expensive, photographic equipment. He hinted that such surveillance with more-sophisticated satellite technology might require search warrants. In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. argued that the majority opinion misinterpreted previous Supreme Court decisions on privacy. "The court erroneously states that the fourth amendment protects Dow only from 'actual physical entry' by the government 'into any enclosed area,' " he said. Powell cited a key decision written earlier by Justice Potter Stewart, who argued that fourth-amendment protections would be meaningless in our modern technological world if they "turn[ed] upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure." In his dissent, Powell argued likewise. Fourth-amendment rights could be "seriously at risk as technological advances become generally disseminated and available in our society," he said.
The Dow case began in 1978. EPA already had inspected two power plants in Dow's facility to determine their compliance with clean air standards when it asked to return to photograph the plant from ground level. Dow refused the request. Instead of getting an administrative search warrant, EPA hired a commercial aerial photographer to take photographs of the facility at various altitudes. Some of those photographs, when blown up, would depict objects a half inch in diameter at Dow's facility. Dow found out about the photographs and sued. A federal judge ruled that the aerial p h o t o g r a phy without a search warrant was illegal. That decision was overturned in an appellate court and upheld last week by the Supreme Court. EPA spokesman Chris Rice says: "We're delighted with the ruling and believe that it strengthens our abilities to enforce against violators of the Clean Air Act." Dow senior attorney Jane Gootee expresses disappointment in the majority decision. But she adds: "The dissent is so strong that it is likely to generate a fair amount of debate—even in Congress." There have already been a number of published law review articles and moot courts in law schools on this issue, Gootee says. •
Antibody finding may hasten AIDS vaccine Evidence that antibodies can be developed against certain core proteins produced by the virus that causes acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) comes from research at the National Cancer Institute and George Washington University school of medicine and health sciences. This finding could hasten development of a vaccine for the disease. Prem S. Sarin, Daisy K. Sun, and Arthur H. Thornton of the National Cancer Insitute, working with Paul H. Naylor and Allan L. Goldstein of George Washington University, find that antibodies raised against a hormone of the thymus May 26, 1986 C&EN
5
